“I don’t believe in Global Warming”

A big UN report arrived on recently, saying in no uncertain terms that the world has up to two decades to massively cut emissions by transforming the global economy if we want to avoid terrible climate impacts.

Given the implications of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) findings — government intervention, progressive social policies, more international aid — it’s perhaps not surprising that those who deny climate change is real or a problem pushed back. It took a few days, but the climate science deniers’ response to the IPCC report is now in full flow.

What we see is three distinct layers of climate science denial at play here:

There’s the ‘this isn’t happening’ sun-spot brigade.

There’s the ‘this is happening but it’s all a Communist ruse’ zealots.

And then there’s the team who reluctantly admit they’ve lost the debate but shoehorn in a number of caveats and excuses to justify why nothing should happen.

‘This isn’t happening’

Over at Steve Bannon’s alt-right hate machine Breibart, James Delingpole calls the IPCC report: “wailing hysteria and worryingly eco-fascistic policy prescriptions”.

Quoting Benny Peiser of the oft-debunked Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), he claims that the climate breakdown “hasn’t been supported by real-world evidence”.

Delingpole draws on an old friend, author Rupert Darwall, to claim that “science” is really just a pretext, devised by “ideological Euro Greenies, to destroy the fossil fuel hegemony of countries like the U.S. and to impose on them a new, eurocentric, renewable energy global tyranny.”

Now in full flow, Delingpole mocks reporting (such as ours) that points to the egregious media coverage in the UK, which favoured Strictly Come Dancing over ecological crisis. He asks, could it be that within the media universe “a few vestiges of the old standards still prevail? That maybe some editors still recognise a complete non-story when they see one?”

The BBC’s editors decided it was a story, but had a slightly odd approach to covering it.

As DeSmog UK pointed out, Newsnight chose to invite on US climate science denier Myron Ebell.

Ebell is the former head of President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transition team and a Director of the libertarian US think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

His appearance has been heavily slated. Environmental writer Mark Lynas described the interview as “utterly pointless and embarrassing. Car-crash television, and a waste of time that could have been used addressing the real questions.”

“If you want political analysis, ask a policy analyst. If you want propaganda, ask Myron Ebell,” said Simon Lewis, professor of global change science at University College London.

Not to be denied their place in the sun, LBC radio got in on the action, giving a platform to GWPF-founder Lord Nigel Lawson to spout his stock in trade — that all this talk of climate action is just “PC claptrap”.

Not content with giving Nigel Lawson a platform, LBC doubled up by bringing Piers Corbyn on to deny not just climate breakdown — “I’ll challenge the IPCC and the professor just speaking, there is no scientific paper in existence that shows that increases of carbon dioxide worldwide drive world temperature rises” — but that coral reefs were under threat.

The IPCC’s report compiled evidence from more than 6,000 papers. It said 70 to 90 percent of coral reefs would be lost with 1.5C of warming, and almost all with 2C of warming.

‘It’s all a ruse’

Over at Conservative Woman — which regularly runs pieces by Conservative non-woman and GWPF researcher Harry Wilkinson — a headline runs “Top scientist shoots the climate-change alarmists down in flames”. In that article, Wilkinson quotes American climate science denier Richard Lindzen, who the GWPF contrived to give its annual lecture on the day the IPCC report was released.

In an extraordinary talk, Lindzen equates the climate consensus with “the suicide of industrial society”. His talk is a homage to oil and coal arguing: “the power these people desperately seek includes the power to roll back the status and welfare that the ordinary person has acquired and continues to acquire through the fossil fuel generated industrial revolution and return them to their presumably more appropriate status as serfs.”

Lindzen has form. Back in 2017 writing at Merion West, Lindzen argued that believing climate change is largely caused by increases in carbon dioxide is “pretty close to believing in magic.”

In 2015 The Daily Mail reported Lindzen compared people believing in global warming to religious fanatics: “As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical.”

The Spectator would seem to agree. Its beleaguered editor Fraser Nelson tweeted a sneering comment in support of Ross Clark’s article, in which he states:

“It isn’t hard to spot the problem with issuing frightening-sounding deadlines. If the deadlines come and go, without us managing to lower emissions and yet still life goes on, it makes the people setting the deadlines look rather foolish.”

“It is also somewhat counter-productive. Given the failure of the world to come to an end, it is tempting to say, just as we do when religious cults and other fantasists make doom-laden predictions which fail to come to pass: well, the whole thing must be a hoax. What is the point of listening any further?”

Clark has a long history of climate denial. Back in 2015 he wrote in the Express the sort of paean to fossil fuel capitalism that Richard Lindzen would have been proud of:

“Climate change is not the greatest risk to the world: the biggest danger we face is the economic decline which would result from the loss of the cheap energy which has improved lives beyond all recognition over the past two centuries.”

“You name it: better food, better transport, better medical care. Ultimately, all the fantastic improvements in our lives since 1800 have been down to one thing: our ability to harness energy from fossil fuels.”

In summary: Everything’s getting better forever and ever. Except the IPCC report tells us that’s very much not the case, unless we take radical action. Which is perhaps why, in a second Breitbart article, Delingpole took aim at the organisations charged with implementing this ‘green tyranny’ that would see a move away from fossil fuels — specifically the Committee on Climate Change’s (CCC) Chief Executive, Chris Stark.

He’s a man full of “revolutionary fervour” for cutting the UK’s emissions and helping the world avoid terrible climate impacts, Delingpole (sort of) writes. “If this doesn’t chill you to the marrow, it should”, apparently.

He’s not the only one that’s scared the CCC might now become empowered. Nick Timothy, a former SPAD for Theresa May who is credited with getting the UK’s Department of Climate Change shut down, urges Telegraph readers to “take back control” from “unaccountable entities” such as the CCC.

And entities such as the Nobel committee, perhaps.

Bjorn Lomborg over at the Wall St Journal took the opportunity to distort the work of just-announced Nobel Prize winner, climate economist, William Nordhaus. Lomborg claims Nordhaus said that “proposed cost of CO2 cuts aren’t worth it”.

But as Carbon Brief’s Simon Evans points out on Twitter, Nordhaus literally wrote in one of his many, many papers on the economic rationale for climate action:

“The future is uncertain so we should have more climate policy, not less.”

In one sense the new ideological discomfort of the shrinking climate denial network is understandable. As the IPCC reports outlines, mass systemic change is required –  a systemic change that is incompatible with the economic system the climate science deniers revere.

‘It’s happening, but…’

The Daily Mail – a bastion of climate science denial under former editor Paul Dacre – started uncharacteristically promisingly with Peter Oborne’s excellent report from Bangladesh, which seems to be based on actual facts and actual reporting and firmly grounded in reality.

But then on Wednesday they had Stephen Glover veer from acknowledging the level of crisis, to arguing that it’s all just too expensive so nothing should be done. He writes:

“This week’s IPCC report judged that global warming must be kept to a maximum of 1.5C warmer than pre-industrial levels, rather than the 2C ceiling previously envisaged. How can scientists be so sure that the lower figure should become the new goal?

“I ask because it carries enormous extra costs. The IPCC estimates that new energy infrastructure — wind, solar and electricity storage — as well as technologies that can capture CO2 from the atmosphere, could cost a jaw dropping £1,800 billion.”

“This will be paid for by the likes of you and me.” He’s not the only one that acknowledges climate change is a problem but isn’t really willing to countenance the solutions.

Rod Liddle in The Sun takes aim first at vegetarians, then at windfarms.

Of the IPCC’s suggestion that we’re going to have to eat a lot less meat, he says: “Climate change is a fact. But when they conflate two issues for reasons of fashion, I begin to smell a rat”.

So Rod isn’t going veggie. But what of another IPCC finding, that the world is going to need a heck of a lot more windfarms? No. He doesn’t fancy that either:

“Wind turbines are a blight on our landscape”, he says, “causing misery wherever they are”.

That’s all pretty normal messaging for newspapers known for objecting to climate policy. But what’s new about the latest spate of climate science denial is its politics.

Having overwhelmingly lost the scientific debate, these groups are now pivoting to a new position which is centered around two ideas: first that the new is too apocalyptic and second that it’s too expensive.

Given what is required is systemic change, they are swiftly changing positions to defend the indefensible — an economic system based on extraction and exploitation of natural resources and mass consumerism that the IPCC tells us must be in its end-phase.

But it’s not all bad…

Amongst the torrent of climate science denial from the usual suspects, there are also a few shoots of refreshing reality appearing.  For instance, the normally obstinate Times runs an editorial that breaks with their own columnist Matt Ridley’s vehement do-nothingery and points to the IPCC report to make his stance look absurd:

“The IPCC report’s authors warn that cutting emissions fast enough to keep the planet sufficiently cool could mean a $2.5 trillion hit to global GDP. Others estimate that switching to electric cars will create new industries worth $7 trillion a year in the US alone. It is true that a revolution will be necessary, but it should be bloodless and it will be good for us. So bring it on.”

By Mike Small at:




MY RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH! – The facts on Proposition 10

You are already hearing a lot of arguments against Prop 10. Those arguments are designed to confuse you into voting NO. They will say things like “it is badly written” and “it doesn’t solve all housing problems.” That’s why we want you to read it for yourself. You will see it’s pretty clear and simple. But because some of it is written in legal terms, we are providing some clear explanations as to what the different sections mean.

Some of the many endorsements

As Section 1 says, Proposition 10 is the Affordable Housing Act.

WHAT IT MEANS:  Passing it empowers local communities to expand rent control to limit skyrocketing rent increases and address predatory housing practices. That’s it. It’s a simple, limited measure that doesn’t try to do too much. It won’t solve all housing problems, but it will provide your local government an important set of tools to take action.

Section 2. Findings and Declarations
WHAT IT MEANS: Section 2 describes the housing affordability crisis and why California so desperately needs Prop 10. Bottom line? Everyone should have a safe, healthy and affordable place to call home, but for many, the rent is too damn high.

Home prices and rents are higher in California than any other state except Hawaii. Rent hikes in the state are double the national average – even worse in Los Angeles, where apartments cost 100 percent more than the national average. Out of control housing costs, driven by corporate landlords and big real estate, have left many Californians living paycheck to paycheck, with the American dream of buying a home no longer within reach. Nearly 70 percent of households don’t make enough to afford an average priced home, which runs $538,640. The politicians in Sacramento created this crisis and now they are failing to address it.

Skyrocketing rents are forcing families out of their homes and out of the state – creating labor shortages that hurt local businesses.

49 percent of Californians are struggling to make ends meet and housing is the biggest reason why. Nearly one in three families pay over half of their income on housing and employers can’t afford to pay workers what they need to live locally, leading families to live in overcrowded, substandard condition apartments or face eviction. Housing insecurity hurts performance on the job with many having to move their families further away and even leave the state altogether. Families being priced out of their communities at an alarming rate don’t need more housing, but more affordable housing.

Low-income and middle-income Californians have been hit the hardest.

Since lower-income people and people of color are far more likely to face rent hikes, gentrification is accelerating across California. Living paycheck to paycheck means it’s difficult for working people, like nurses, teachers, service professionals and grocery clerks, to afford housing and still have enough money for groceries, gas and childcare. Prop 10 will enable more communities to implement similar measures to curb predatory housing practices and keep lower-income tenants in their homes. That’s why a broad coalition of nurses, teachers, seniors, labor unions and housing advocates support Prop 10.

Homelessness among retirees, veterans, and others on fixed income is on the rise. More than three-quarters of California’s low-income seniors are financially burdened by rent, according to UCLA. When the rent goes up, so do the number of homeless people. The Los Angeles Times reports that homelessness has surged 22 percent among seniors in LA alone, in part, because every 5 percent increase in rent drives 2,000 more Los Angeles residents into homelessness. Those facing evictions suffer enormous stress, which can lead to depression, heart attacks, and other health problems.

Further, out of 40,000 homeless veterans in the US, 11,000 of them live in California–and we have seen a 17-percent rise in homeless veterans since 2016. Prop 10 is the only solution we have to keep our seniors and veterans living healthy lives in their homes and off the streets.

Since Sacramento told communities that they couldn’t rein in skyrocketing rents, California’s housing crisis has spun out of control.

For decades, corporate landlords and big real estate interests have driven rents higher and higher, driving many residents further away from their jobs, and often out of California altogether. Between 2000 and 2016, rent in California has gone up 85 percent while median household income increased by only 43 percent. Worse, some are driven out of stable housing altogether and find themselves and their families living on the streets and homeless. With this new state law, big real estate interests and landlords got their way, essentially rigging the system to benefit them and leaving local communities powerless to take action to protect their residents.

Section 3. Purposes and Intent
WHAT IT MEANS: Prop 10 does not mandate rent control or force any community to adopt anything they don’t want or need.

Instead, Prop 10 takes a very limited approach to addressing one aspect of our housing affordability crisis. By repealing the failed and outdated Costa-Hawkins law, it simply removes the constraints that law imposed on local governments to limit skyrocketing rents and curb predatory housing practices. By passing Prop 10, local governments will be empowered to take urgent action to address the housing crisis on their terms, should their community need such action.

Section 4. The Affordable Housing Act shall be codified by repealing the following sections of the Civil Code:
WHAT IT MEANS: Section 4 is the technical legal language that repeals the Costa-Hawkins provisions that prevent local communities from deciding rent policies for themselves.

Section 5. The Affordable Housing Act shall be further codified by adding the following section to the Civil Code: Section 1954.54.
WHAT IT MEANS: If you only read one section of Prop 10, it should be Section 5, the most important section.

(a): In Section 5, Prop 10 simply empowers local governments to take urgent action to address the housing crisis on their terms, should such action be needed. According to an important new study by UC Berkeley, rent control is a critical tool to addressing the housing affordability crisis with the level of urgency we need. While long-term strategies are also necessary, Prop 10 is needed now.

(b): For homeowners and rental property owners, it’s important for you to know that Prop 10 protects your right to a fair financial return.

A landlord’s right to a fair rate of return is already guaranteed by the State Constitution, and Prop 10 reaffirms this guarantee, which means landlords are always able to raise rent enough to make a profit each year and to cover all of their repairs and maintenance. Yearly rent hikes are tied to the Consumer Price Index, which helps explain why rent-controlled landlords do nearly as well as market rate landlords in Los Angeles and better than market rate landlords in the rest of the country.

Section 6. Liberal Construction
WHAT IT MEANS: Section 6 gives governments enough power to enforce the intent of the law, so if predatory landlords try to find loopholes, this will limit their ability to do so.

Section 7. Amendment and Repeal
WHAT IT MEANS: Section 7 is another very important section because it limits the power of politicians in Sacramento to undermine the will of the people. What this means is if your local government passes new policies to limit rent increases and curb predatory housing practices, the Legislature cannot overturn those laws without a majority vote of the people.

Section 8. Severability
WHAT IT MEANS: Section 8 gives the people another protection. What this section means, essentially, is that if a court decides that part of Prop 10 is illegal, the rest of Prop 10 won’t be affected.

Section 9. Conflicting Measures
WHAT IT MEANS: Section 9 makes it clear that local governments have the right to establish new policies to help address the housing affordability crisis. If any other statewide ballot measures pass that try to take that authority away, Prop 10 would block it.

Section 10. Legal Defense
WHAT IT MEANS: Section 10 provides another important protection to the voters to have their will and intent in passing Prop 10 upheld. If the state refuses to protect the constitutionality of Prop 10, the people would allow the proponents of Prop 10 to protect it in court. This does not allow the proponents to sue landlords for rental increases or cities for not adopting rent control.

Section 11. Effective Date
WHAT IT MEANS: Voters: if you want to take on our housing crisis and take action to bring down rent and stop predatory housing practices, you have the power to do so. By voting YES on Prop 10, you can give your local community the power to address housing issues starting on November 7th, the day after the election. That means by voting YES, we can immediately empower our cities or towns to act urgently. If you are sick and tired of being dragged down by high rent, Section 11 may be your favorite section because it means you could see relief right away.

Measure M – More reasons to remove the symbol from the Plaza

Pg.5/112 of the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) (The EIR Study is Required for the removal of the statue.)

“The removal of commemorative works has become a national issue. In March of this year, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), an independent federal agency created by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, to promote the preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of our nation’s diverse historic resources, and to advise the President and the Congress on national historic preservation policy, issued a policy statement to help communities address controversial commemorative works. The policy statement is included as Appendix B. In short, the ACHP statement provides guiding principles to assist local governments when facing decisions regarding the disposition of controversial public commemorative works and acknowledges that communities’ values change over time and that appropriate stewardship should balance stewardship responsibilities for publicly-owned commemorative works with recognition of the sensibilities, cultural responses, and emotions over memorialization and remembrance of difficult chapters in the nation’s history. (ACHP, March 2018) This guidance supports the City Council’s decision to remove the statue for the reasons stated herein.”

How the hell did this stupid statue windup in Arcata in the first place?

George Zehenduer, an early settler of Arcata, commissioned the statue of the late President McKinley for the City of Arcata.

Who in the hell is George Zehenduer?

“The 1860 Federal Census of Humboldt County, Union Township (Arcata), pg. 71 shows George Zehenduer, age 36; born in Bavaria – had an indentured Indian girl, Lucy, age 7, in his home, along with Jacob Zehenduer, age 27, farm laborer and Hannah Bresner, age 43, a housekeeper. How this indenture came about is unknown.


George Zehenduer and Local Genocide in Humboldt County 

By Steven Munoz and Paul Hilton Humboldt State University research interns with The City of Arcata

George Zehenduer, an early settler of Arcata, commissioned the statue of the late President McKinley for the City of Arcata.  What do we know about Zehndner?

George Zehndner was born in Bavaria on June 22, 1824, and came to America in 1849. Arriving with little money, he took up farm work for two years in Indiana, where he learned English. Walking from Indiana to Cincinnati, Zehndner boarded a steamboat heading for New Orleans.  Mr. Zehndner then gained passage through the Panama isthmus, onto a whaling ship, eventually landing in California.  The spring of 1853 saw Zehndner in Weaverville, Trinity County, where he invested his earnings in mules.  The following year he traded 20 mules for 20 cattle and guided the herd north into Humboldt County, where he established himself in the cattle industry at Angel’s Ranch, 12 miles from Arcata.

California became a state in 1850, and promptly passed the 1850 Act for the Government and the Protection of Indians that facilitated removing California Indians from their traditional lands, separating at least a generation of children from their families, languages, and cultures. It encouraged indenturing Indian people to Whites. In 1860, an amendment to the act reaffirmed control over Indians to the point that any person who obtained one could authorize them “to have the care, custody and control of such Indian or Indians.”[1]  During this period, indigenous women and children were kidnapped and shipped to towns and cities such as Sacramento, Weaverville, Eureka or San Francisco for sale as slaves.

The 1860 Federal Census of Humboldt County, Union Township (Arcata), pg. 71 shows George Zehenduer, age 36; born in Bavaria – had an indentured Indian girl, Lucy, age 7, in his home, along with Jacob Zehenduer, age 27, farm laborer and Hannah Bresner, age 43, a housekeeper. How this indenture came about is unknown.

“Humboldt Home Guard,” “Hydesville Dragoons,” and the “Eel River Minutemen” were groups that developed in the 1850s-60s and were openly violent toward Indigenous people. These civilian militias led hunts for Indigenous people with the intent of land, resource, and slave acquisition, as well as ethnic cleansing of the new frontier. During this time, the United States was reimbursing the State of California hundreds of thousands of dollars for the “semipro Indian killing between 1850 and 1859, exclusive of the expenses of the United States Army activities in policing California Indian Country and suppressing uprisings.” (Norton, 1979:76).

Polly, a young girl estimated to be 10 years old by her descendant, Julian Lang (Wiyot/Karuk), was one of the hundreds of young women trafficked through the county. Originally born and raised among her Wiyot people on Wigi (Humboldt Bay), Polly was a young child during the Indian Island Massacre on February 26, 1860. She was not on the island at the time of the massacre, but near the current location of the Carson Mansion overlooking the bay in Eureka. Polly and her sister (name unknown) woke to see smoke and a strange lack of activity across the water. They later found their family and community massacred. Following the massacre, Wiyot people who had escaped the island took refuge at Fort Humboldt, where nearly half of them died from disease, starvation, and exposure (Wiyot, 2016). The Wiyot people who survived their time at the fort were later forcibly relocated to the Klamath reservation to the north, Hoopa (Fort Gaston), and Round Valley.

Shortly after the massacre, Polly and her sister were sold by an unknown party to a German gold miner, Karl Conrad. Commenting on the massacre, newspaperman Bret Harte wrote, “a more shocking and revolting spectacle never was exhibited to the eyes of a Christian and civilized people.”

On March 22, 1862, local Native Americans attacked and burned down Zehndner’s Angel Ranch, shooting Zehndner in the back and hand. His injuries caused him years of illness, but he was able to return in 1866. In 1870, he sold Angel Ranch to claim a home in Arcata, where he resided thereafter. Zehndner owned two other ranches in the region, which he leased in retirement, as well as business property in town.

Zehndner idolized President McKinley, and in 1905 commissioned sculpturist Haig Patigian to produce a large statue of the late President McKinley. Zehndner’s history reflects him to be an opportunist who took advantage of the Indian indenture system in California.

Written by unpaid interns with the City of Arcata, Steven Munoz, a Senior and History major and Paul Hilton, a Senior and Political Science major at HSU. A big thanks to Walter Paniak, a local citizen, for his contributions to our understanding of the topic at hand.

Professor Michael Eric Dyson: This Is “White Supremacy By Ventriloquism”

Professor Michael Eric Dyson: Blacks Can Not Stand By Kanye West; This Is “White Supremacy By Ventriloquism”

Professor Michael Eric Dyson called the Donald Trump-Kanye West meeting an example of mass ignorance in the face of the downfall of democracy. Dyson also shook his head at the notion that Kanye could have brought Trump and Colin Kaepernick together. He went on to say that African-Americans can not stand by his comments and that they must intervene on his behalf.

Dyson also accused West of furthering white supremacy by giving “cover” to Trump and of being a puppet. He called West a ventriloquist dummy for white supremacists.

“This is time for us to say Kanye, we, as African-American people cannot stand idly by while you give cover to a man who is proved to be a white supremacist,” Dyson said.

“This is white supremacy by ventriloquism. A black mouth is moving but white racist ideals are flowing from Kanye West’s mouth.”

Watch the video

John Chiv, Creepy Matthew Owen, dishonest Fullerton and the Whole Brady Bunch

Fullerton rally with many East-West crazy-train proponents showing their support

On October 6th our post was “Eureka Election Campaign Bully Outed, Surprise! He’s in the Brady Bunch” 

On October 11th Commenter Trumptastrophe said:

With that in mind (John Chiv’s fervent support for putting a right-wing misogynistic Republican rapist on the Supreme Court), Hailey Lamb probably should keep as much distance between herself and creepy John Chiv as possible, because John Chiv (who is at least twice as old as Miss Lamb) creepily heaping effusive personal praise upon the inexperienced pretty young city council candidate Hailey Lamb is obviously a desperate attempt on Chiv’s part to get his sad self a date, which is NOT going to happen! Chiv has been drooling all over Miss Lamb ever since she announced her candidacy! GROSS!!

On October 11, 2018  the Examiner replied:

We think there’s a creepy Matthew Owen connection involved

Now today, in this guest post, commenter Verbena chimes in:

Yeah, I think Matthew Owen is coaching Hailey Lamb to be a local politician. “Creepy Matthew Owen connection” indeed! It’s always creepy when he’s involved.

Going back to Fullerton’s dishonesty.  He has always lied, for instance, about the results of raising wages. Raising wages has no detrimental effect on employment or hours, but it does create a more robust economy- with workers who are able to live better and buy more stuff.  Fullerton used some old tired lies, claiming that raising wages hurts business- he wants to make sure stingy business owners don’t have to pay their workers wages they can live on. Fullerton, thus, does not concern himself with the well-being of most of Eureka’s residents – working class people.

When we put the Fair Wage Act on the 2014 ballot in Eureka, John Fullerton falsified donation information to oppose Fair Wages. (Had it won, our minimum wage would be probably 13+ dollars by now, and the city would be more vibrant, not so depressed and barely surviving). Records showed that Fullerton apparently got over $10,000 from various sources to go to campaign against raising wages- without the donors having to abide by the disclosure rules! That meant businesses and individuals that actively funded an anti-fair wage campaign did not have to be known publicly, as required by the law, because Fullerton conveniently claimed that adding up to $10,000+, the donations were all $99 each. (He pulled this trick at least two times during our campaign with thousands of dollars) You see, every $100 donation in a Eureka campaign is supposed to be reported and available to the public by donor’s name, contact, and business– so Fullerton cheated.  It doesn’t surprise me that he is lying again about Storme Winters. Fullerton talks like he is supplying you the rational low-down, he “mansplains” – but he is often lying.

Unfortunately, Jeannie Breslin is also dishonest. (She probably learned how to lie when she did marketing campaigns for the 2nd largest weapons manufacturer- Boeing.) I also find Breslin to be cruel. She calls for increased government and vigilante action that dehumanizes and traumatizes homeless women and men (and children, the less visible homeless), and causes them to suffer more, go to jail, disappear, or die. Breslin and Fullerton will not be helpful to the lives of most Eurekans and are blatant with their lack of concern for our vulnerable ones.              Verbena

The 700-page report that sheds light on the end of life as we know it and dumb-ass Donny

Trump says he “absolutely” plans on looking at that landmark climate change report published by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Y’know, the one that essentially says the planet and all of its inhabitants are totally screwed unless we change course, like, yesterday? Li’l Donny says “it was given” to him, and he seems just a little bit suspicious.

The so-called leader of the free world prepared his first comments on the 700-page report that sheds light on the end of life as we know it, and would like to know: Which group drew the report? No, no, you read that right. “Drew,” not “drew up.”

The ignoramus said “I want to look at who drew it,” he told reporters on the South Lawn. “You know, which group drew it.” No, we actually don’t know, because the IPCC report — the compilation of thousands of studies on climate science — isn’t a f-ing coloring book. As in — we can’t believe we have to explain this — it’s not something you draw, it’s something you read. Wtf!

But maybe it’s not so surprising that dumb-ass Donny thinks someone drew the IPCC study, considering he likes his intelligence briefings heavy on the pictures, light on the intelligence. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Trump really enjoys “killer graphics,” so … maybe Trump’s staff just slapped a frowny face on a drawing of Planet Earth and put it on his desk. Honestly, that about sums it up anyway.

Read the disturbing report here:


Detailed reporting on the report Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C

8 October 2018: The 48th session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-48) has approved a Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) and its Technical Summary, and adopted a Summary for Policymakers (SPM), following its line-by-line discussion. According to the Panel, limiting the global average temperature rise to 1.5ºC is still possible; however, it will require “unprecedented” transitions in all aspects of society, including: the transformation of energy, agricultural, urban and industrial systems; engagement of non-state actors; and integration of climate action into broader public policy and development frameworks.

The meeting, which convened from 1-6 October 2018, in Incheon, Republic of Korea, brought together more than 500 participants from over 130 countries. The report’s full name is ‘Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty.’ The SPM was officially launched during a press conference on 8 October.

The SR15 involved 91 authors from 40 countries, 133 contributing authors, over 6,000 cited references, and 42,001 expert and government review comments. As part of the 2015 UNFCCC decision adopting the Paris Agreement on climate change, the IPCC was invited to produce, in 2018, a Special Report on global warming of 1.5°C above preindustrial levels and related global greenhouse gas (GHG) emission pathways. The IPCC accepted the invitation in 2016, agreeing that the Special Report would look at these issues in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.

IPCC-48 kicked off on Monday morning, 1 October, with an opening ceremony, including a video message from the President of the Republic of Korea, Moon Jae-in. IPCC-48 was then suspended so the Joint WG Session could begin its work, and met briefly on Friday to address additional agenda items and adopt decisions on, inter alia, the IPCC Scholarship Programme and the Ad Hoc Task Group on Financial Stability (ATG-Finance).

The Joint Session of IPCC Working Groups (WGs) I, II and III considered the SPM line-by-line in order to reach agreement. This represented the first time the three WGs had collaborated together, in an interdisciplinary fashion, on an IPCC special report. While the SPM was reviewed in a plenary setting, discussion of some subsections, paragraphs, figures and definitions took place in informal huddles or in contact groups.

The SPM presents the key findings of the report, based on the assessment of the available scientific, technical and socio-economic literature relevant to global warming of 1.5°C.

The Summary consists of four sections:

Understanding global warming of 1.5°C;

Projected climate change, potential impacts and associated risks;

Emission pathways and system transitions consistent with 1.5°C global warming; and

Strengthening the global response in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.

The underlying report assesses the latest science on 1.5ºC of warming above preindustrial levels as opposed to 2ºC of warming, which is projected to lead to worse global and regional climate impacts, exposing 420 million more people to severe heatwaves, for example. One of the report’s key messages is that the consequences of 1°C of global warming are already being observed through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes. The report highlights climate change impacts that could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C, and examines various pathways to limit warming to 1.5°C, what it would take to achieve them and their consequences.

The report explains that global anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions would need to decrease by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero by around 2050, meaning that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air. Allowing the global temperature increase to temporarily exceed or “overshoot” 1.5°C would necessitate greater reliance on CO2 removal techniques to return the global temperature rise to below 1.5°C by 2100. However, such techniques, including carbon capture and storage (CCS), are unproven at a large scale and some may carry significant risks.

According to the report, climate action towards 1.5ºC can also help achieve the SDGs, including those related to agriculture, water, energy, biodiversity, public health and cities – sectors that influence and are influenced by the climate. The SR15 highlights in particular “robust synergies” between 1.5°C pathways and SDGs 3 (good health and well-being), 7 (affordable and clean energy), 11 (sustainable cities and communities), 12 (responsible consumption and production) and 14 (life below water).

In a statement following the release of the SR15, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called the report “an ear-splitting wake-up call to the world” noting that “a half of a degree of warming makes a world of difference,” including more heatwaves, greater species loss, increased water scarcity and a total wipe-out of the world’s coral reefs. Guterres stressed the need to: plant billions of trees; drastically reduce fossil fuel use and phase out coal by 2050; ramp up the installation of wind and solar power; invest in climate-friendly sustainable agriculture; and consider new technologies such as CCS. In this regard, he urged countries to raise their ambition, strengthen their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and urgently accelerate implementation of the Paris Agreement. [Statement of the UN Secretary General]

The SR15 will be a key scientific input into the Katowice Climate Change Conference in Poland in December 2018, when governments are expected to adopt implementation guidelines for the Paris Agreement.

The SR15 is the first in a series of Special Reports to be produced during the IPCC’s sixth assessment cycle. In 2019, the IPCC will release Special Reports on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) and Climate Change and Land (SRCCL). The Panep will also approve a 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National GHG Inventories at IPCC-49 in May 2019 in Kyoto, Japan. [Webpage for SR15] [SR15 SPM] [Headline Statements] [UNFCCC Press Release] [IPCC Press Release] [IISD Reporting Services Coverage of IPCC-48] [IISD Reporting Services Summary Report of IPCC-48]

Time to call out Marian Brady for lying

At Eureka Elks Lodge Harbor District debate Marian Brady just straight up lied claiming the Harbor District has never studied the feasibility of a rail connection to the port. This is a tactic that Brady has used repeatedly throughout her career as a politician. Starting back in 2010 with her lies and spin about Arkley’s failed Big box mall Marina Center. (remember her campaign promise to get the site cleaned up and the project built…oops)

From the Times-Standard:  Talk of potentially building a railroad in Humboldt County has sparked discussion over whether such a thing is feasible or affordable, while some believe a rail industry would trigger local job creation.

Brady said “the district hasn’t ever looked into the feasibility of rail, noting a commissioner needs to have an “open mind” to the possibilities it could bring.”

Marks noted a feasibility study has already been done — it’s on the harbor district website, he said, and it makes clear that a railroad is feasible in theory but tremendously costly.

Here’s the proof that Brady is lying, Read the news story about it:


by Daniel Mintz – McKinleyville Press – August 7, 2013

A draft feasibility study prepared for the county’s Harbor District has identified several challenges to railroad development and deemed it to be a “high cost and high risk” venture.

Authored by the Washington-based BST Associates and the Portland-based Burgel Rail Group consulting firms, the draft study’s focus has disappointed rail advocates who believe imported manufactured goods are an important source of rail cargo.

The study only considers export of bulk goods such as coal, grain and iron ore, describing them as high volume, strong growth rail traffic commodities that “represent a key source of revenue to railroads.”

High cargo volume is described as a requirement for recouping investment, debt and operation costs of a new rail line. Developing an east-west railroad is estimated in the study to cost up to $1.2 billion. The cost of redeveloping the North Coast Railroad Authority’s unused north-south line from Windsor to Samoa is estimated at $609,000 in the study.

Etching an east-west rail corridor from here to the Gerber/Redding area and its connection to a national rail line is a challenging proposition due to the “extreme ruggedness” of the terrain, according to the study. The distance is about 100 miles but 200 miles of rail track would be needed as the route would wind and curve around slopes and mountains.

Three primary east-west route alternatives are outlined in the study, beginning in the Eureka/Arcata/Samoa areas and ending at Union Pacific railheads in the Redding/Gerber/Red Bluff areas.

The study questions whether rail development is economically feasible, as there are several existing West Coast port/rail connections.

“Humboldt County would face several competitive disadvantages relative to these other ports, including the need to cover the cost of constructing the new line and the lack of a rail distance advantage,” the study states.

It references a 2009 study sponsored by the Security National Company, which operates a shipping terminal in Fairhaven. Drafted by the U.K.-based Drewry Shipping Consultants firm, that analysis focused on imports of container (manufactured) goods and part of its executive summary is quoted in BST/Burgel study.

“This report concluded that ‘Under no foreseeable circumstances should Security National consider building a new container terminal at the port, without the prior contractual support of at least one shipping line, in the hope that ‘the lines will come when it is built,’” the study states.

Also included is this quote from the Drewry report summary: “The difficulty will lie in convincing the shipping lines that the Port of Humboldt Bay offers sufficient competitive advantages over Prince Rupert, Vancouver, Seattle, Tacoma, Portland and Oakland for it to fully support the project before construction commences.”

Returning to its focus on exports, the study adds that “it is assumed that if Humboldt County were to attract a commodity that is not currently shipped through another West Coast port, it would most likely be destined for Asia.”

Coal is identified as the commodity that fits the assumption, as the amounts shipped from the U.S. have “risen sharply” in recent years. Corn and petroleum products are also named as high volume Asian export commodities.

Humboldt would have an export distance advantage over some West Coast rail-connected ports, such as the one in Coos Bay, but the study deems it to be insubstantial. Far greater is the basic advantage offered by other shipping hubs compared to Humboldt, according to the study.

“A critical advantage that all of these other ports have relative to Humboldt County is that the rail lines are already in place,” the study states. “In addition, most of these existing rail routes are capable of handling large volumes of heavy rail traffic, without the billion-dollar-plus investment needed for an east-west route to Humboldt County.”

The draft study was presented to the Harbor District’s Board of Commissioners and an audience of railroad advocates and skeptics on July 25.

Brian Winningham of BST described various financing scenarios and said higher-interest borrowing may be more appropriate for a high risk project like rail development. Depending on the interest rate for financing, a north-south rail would need to move anywhere from 5.6 to 42 million tons a year of cargo and an east-west operation would need 11.5 to 100 million tons to cover costs, he said.

Winningham compared that with the “top export ports” of Portland, Oregon and Kalama, Washington, which each handle 10 to 12 million tons a year. “When you get up to some of the higher volumes, these are beyond what anybody on the West Coast does right now,” Winningham said of the Humboldt cargo estimates.

Commissioner Richard Marks said he attended a forum whose participants said they’ve been negotiating with the Wal-Mart corporation on importing its products to Humboldt’s port.

When Winningham said Humboldt would be competing with Oakland’s port – which he said has additional capacity – Marks pointed out that Humboldt has a two-day shipping time advantage when fielding imports from Asia.

But Commissioner Pat Higgins, a rail skeptic, said the expansion of Oakland’s port was government-supported and lower payback on borrowing would allow Oakland to “undercut” Humboldt if it came down to a bidding war.

Winningham said container volumes peaked in 2005 and there’s “new competition” from Canadian ports and even more will be introduced with the widening of the Panama Canal. “It’s a riskier business now,” he said, adding that ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach are also expanding.

The study cost $19,000 and was paid for by the California Department of Transportation.